Cricket Sidelights.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLI, Issue 6, 5 August 1908, Page 12

Cricket Sidelights.

By P. F. WARNER (Author of “Cricket in Many Climes,” etc.). BRILLIANT BATTING FEATS. I. Batting on a hard, true wicket, and on a sticky, difficult wicket, are two entirely different things, and one often sees a man who is a fair player on a fast wicket absolutely at sea when rain has ruined the pitch. A left-handed bowler, like Rhodes or Blythe, is then in his element, for he pitches the ball a good length on the leg stump; it comes across quickly to the off, and you stand a very good chance of being either bowled or caught at the wicket, or snapped up by an eager short slip. As a rule, the hitting or “long handle game,” as it has been called, pays best under these circumstances, but some men who are really strong in their back and on side play can play their ordinary game. A strong defensive back player can often persuade a good length ball which breaks away on the on side for two or three runs, while a good puller has a great advantage. The man who does not watch the ball, and watch it well, will have little or no chance on a sticky wicket. At one time there were very few men who could play at an on a really difficult wicket, but of late years, what with the general improvement in back play—due chiefly to K. 8. Ranjitsinhji’s influence on the game—the number was increased. Hon. F. S. Jackson, O. B. Fry, A. C. MacLar en, Ranjitsinhji, Tyldesley, and Hirst are the best batsmen we have under conditions favourable to the bowler, and I shall never forget an extraordinary innings Ranjitsinhji played at Brighton in July, 1906, for Sussex v. Middlesex. J. T. Hearne and Albert Trott, of Middlesex, are extremely difficult bowlers on this kind of wicket, for they make the ball turn a good deal at a quick pace off the ground. When stumps were drawn, on the second evening of the match, Ranjitsinhji was 37 not out, the game up to that time having been played on a perfect wicket. SCORING UNDER DIFFICULTIES. Rain, however, fell heavily in the night, and with the sun coming out next morning, the wicket was a regular “glue pot.” Vine made 17, but no one else on the side got more than 5, excepting Ranjitsinhji, who was last man out lbw to Trott for 202. He gave-one chance in the long field when he had made about 169 runs, but, apart from this, his batting was absolutely without a flaw. Most of his runs came from hard drives, chiefly to the on, and strokes on the leg side. It was an astonishing innings, and its full significance was possibly not appreciated until Tate, on an exactly similar wicket, dismissed r. powerful Middlesex eleven for just over 100 runs. The name of Tyldesley recalls many great innings, and one of the best this “classic” batsman ever played was at Sydney in December, 1903, in the first teat match between M.C.O. and Australia. The Australian first innings had been finished off for 285, and M.O.C, had threequarters of en hour’s batting before lunch; and as heavy rain in the night had been followed by a hot sun, no one would have been surprised had we lost four wickets before lunch. In fact Noble told me afterwards that he fully expected Saundera would have got four of us

out before the interval. The first wicket fell before a rim had been scored, and then Tyldesley came in. The and to which Saunders was bowling was made for a left hander, but Tyldesley took him by the scruff of the neck and hit him to aU corners of the field; and in fifty-six minutes hit up fifty-three out of seventythree, without a chance or mistake of any kind. In the second test match that season the pitch at Melbourne was very bad indeed in the second innings of M.C.C., an<J in a total of 103—eight of which were extras—Tyldesley scored 62; and a better innings has surely never been played on a difficult wicket. He hit Trumble for a fiver—a hit over the ring in Australia counting five—end roused the spectators to enthusiasm by smiting three successive balls of Saunders’ for four, four, and five, the last,being a grand hit right into the ladies’ reserve, the ball landing over the screen placed across the path leading from the gate to the pavilion railing. FINE CRICKET. Trumper’s great innings of 185 not out for Australia v. England represented Trumpet at his best; greater praise is scarcely possible. Every stroke was in evidence, the cut, the drive, the leg glance; and that special one of Trumper’s when he goes right back almost on to his wiekets and forces a ball just short of a good length away past until on or be--tween the off side fielders. In that game Foster played his immortal innings of 287 for England. His first 73 were made in three hours. During that time he was scarcely at his beet, and there was one chance, and a faulty hit or two, but it must be remembered that the ball always required careful watching; for ths pitch was not quite perfect, and the Australian bowling was of a high quality. 73 not out was Foster’s score at the drawing of stumps on the second day. On the third day he added another 216 runs in four and a quarter hours. His batting then was, I think, the best I have ever seen on a hard, true wicket; his off driving and cutting have never been equalled—while- his driving was tremendous in its power. He was exceptionally quick on his feet, frequently moving a yard out of his ground to play the ball. In the last hour he scored 80 runs —a feat Jessop, Lyons, or Bonnor have not often surpassed. Foster has beaten other records in Gentlemen v. Players, and Oxford v. Cambridge, and if he played at all regularly he would be one of the first choices for England in every test match. Turning to the test matches at home one naturally finds the name of F. S. Jackson figuring over a hundred for England v. Australia, and the best, and the highest of these was, I fancy, his 144 not out, out of a total of 301 at Leeds, in 1905. Going in with the score at 57 for three wickets, he withstood the bowling for four hours and twenty minutes. He was batting an hour and a half for his first fifty runs, and completed his hundred in three hours and a half. The wicket was on the slow side, but his cutting was beautifully timed, and some of his drives were very hard indeed. He hit eighteen fours, and front the first ball played with that determination and concentration which have helped so much to make him the greatest batsman in the world on a big occasion. Jackson is neither so brilliant nor so attractive to look at as some other great batsmen, but he is Soundness itself, and never takes a liberty. He goes in with the fixed idea of playing himself in thoroughly before taking the smallest risk, and never makes the mistake of under-rating his opponent’s bowling. SOME COMPARISONS. The Australians will tell you that A. C. MacLaren is the greatest batsman we have ever sent them. Indeed they almost rave about him, and I have met men in the pavilion at Sydney who are ready to lay even money that MacLaren will make a hundred every time he goes in'to bat on a true wicket; and certainly MacLaren’s performances in Australia are as good as Jackson’s in England. Until the last visit of the Australians MacLaren had never made a hundred for England v. Australia in England, but his 88 not out at Lords in 1898 was as remarkable an innings as his 140 at Nottingham For one thing the Australian bowling in 1899 with Jones, Howell, Noble, Trumble, and Laver was far stronger than in 1905, and England was engaged in a desperate up-hill fight. Fry, Ranjitsinhji, Townsend, and Jackson were out for less than a hundred runs, and England was over 200 runs be-

hind. Then MacLaren and Hayward made a stand. As long as there was * chance for gaining the game, MaeLarea was steadiness itself, bat after Hayward, Tyldesley, and Jessop had been dismissed in rapid succession, and England was still behind hand, he hit out brilliantly, and the recollection of two or three drives to the pavilion rails, which he made off Jones’s exceptionally fast bowling, will linger long in my memory. MacLaren in form is one of the most interesting of batsmen. He has a great variety of stroke, tremendous power, and beautiful style. Every stroke he makes is good to watch; and one wonders why he does not make more runs for Lancashire. When he is playing a great innings, one wonders why he ever gets out. From Lords to Cape Town. Different climate, different light, and very different wicket. Here I saw an innings by J. H. Sinclair which is not unworthy to be counted among the best in the history of the game; for against Trott, Haigh, and Cuttell, at that time, 1899—in their prime, Sinclair scored 106 out of a total of 171 from the bat—the last 47 out of 51. His hitting was wonderful. Six feet four inches in height with a fine breadth of shoulder and chest and very long arms, the bat looked like a w” ' ▼ stick in his hands. THE KENT STAR. The first time I saw K. L. Hutchings play was at Tunbridge Wells in July, 1903, and I thought then that given tha opportunity he was bound to make his mark. He was, at the age of nineteen, as good a batsman as R. H. Spooner was in his last year at Marlborough. But other things besides cricket claimed his attention during the seasons 1903, 1904, 1905, and it was not until 1906 that he was able to take a regular part in County cricket. How splendidly he batted is a matter of history. Four times he scored over a hundred, and in twentyfive innings he made 1,358 runs with an average of 64.66; and it is safe to say that he is the batsman of the future. Very strongly built, his driving on both sides of the wicket is tremendous, and it is no fun fielding mid-off or mid-on to him. Even George Hirst is not ashamed to go back two or three yards. Against Middlesex at Tonbridge last June, Hutchings played two remarkable innings of 125 and 97 not out. Kent was set 292 to win and four wickets down for 113 runs. Two more batsmen were quickly dismissed, consequently Hutchings had to try to save the game. In this he succeeded, but it was a desperately near thing, there being still ten minutes to go when Huiah—who was almost a cripple from lumbago—the last man, came in. At the finish Kent wanted 39 runs. Hutchings is not at present a particularly good batsman on a sticky wicket, but with his splendid hitting powers and strong back play, he no doubt only requires sufficient experience to be as reliable —under conditions favourable to the bowler —as he is on a dry true wicket. Next week: “An Appreciation of Lord Hawke” (by Sir Gordon Home, Bart.).